PEOPLE v. ROJAS (1981)

Because of contentions made by appellant in his petition for rehearing, we feel compelled to be more expansive in our denial than is usually the case.

The petition for rehearing makes the assertion that our failure to discuss certain issues tendered in appellant's opening brief and our statement in the opinion that “they do not merit discussion” violates article VI, section 14 of the California Constitution.

That latter provision states that “Decisions of the Supreme Court and Courts of Appeal that determine causes shall be in writing with reasons stated.”

The exact contours of that requirement have not been delineated by case law perhaps for the reason that the necessarily subjective nature of the determination of what constitutes an “adequate statement of reasons” makes the establishment of objective criteria difficult if not impossible.

In our opinion, the requirement is designed to insure that the reviewing court gives careful thought and consideration to the case and that the statement of reasons indicate that appellant's contentions have been reviewed and consciously, as distinguished from inadvertently, rejected.

We consider our primary role as an intermediate appellate court to review each case for “correctness” of result and we interpret the phrase “determines causes” to refer to disposing of the judgment or the order of the trial court and not to every corollary legal issue that may somehow be involved.

Our view is fortified by the constitutional mandate of article VI, section 13 to the effect that “No judgment shall be set aside, or new trial granted, in any cause, on the ground of misdirection of the jury, or the improper admission or rejection of evidence, or for any error as to any matter of pleading, or for any error as to any matter of procedure, unless, after an examination of the entire cause, including the evidence, the court shall be of the opinion that the error complained of has resulted in a miscarriage of justice.”

As to the effect of article VI, section 14, it has been observed in 5 Cal.Jur.3d, Appellate Review, section 559, page 271: “ ... a short opinion that is severely limited to a brief discussion of the legal issues and the essential facts with a minimum of legal authority satisfies the constitutional requirement.” The example given is an opinion of the Supreme Court itself in McDonald v. Severy, 6 Cal.2d 629, 59 P.2d 98.

Similarly, in 6 Witkin, California Procedure, Appeal, section 496, at page 4447, it is stated “ ... a short opinion, stating only the essential facts and deciding only the essential legal issues ... fully meets the constitutional requirement ...” (Emphasis added.)

Further, the Supreme Court in Holmes v. Rogers, 13 Cal. 191, 202, tersely observed that “ ‘An opinion is not a controversial tract, much less a brief in reply to the counsel against whose views we decide. It is merely a statement of conclusions, and of the principal reasons which have led us to them.’ ”

In the instant case, appellant presented two issues which in our opinion merited extensive discussion, and one of which compelled us to certify our opinion for publication. The remaining issues presented were ones which either were not raised in the trial court or lacked even a modicum of support in the record.

Our statement that these other contentions “did not merit discussion” is an indication that we necessarily and carefully analyzed the contentions in order to reach that conclusion. Having disposed of and determined the “cause”, to wit, to affirm the judgment of conviction on the basis of the two issues presented that were of arguable merit, we did not feel compelled by article VI, section 14, to lengthen the opinion by several additional paragraphs in order to say the same thing only in more words.

We are cognizant of the fact that conscientious lawyers, in both civil and criminal cases, often feel obligated to present every imaginable issue. This tendency in criminal cases is due in part to the Supreme Court's dictates in In Re Smith, 3 Cal.3d 192, 90 Cal.Rptr. 1, 474 P.2d 969. Often-times non-meritorious contentions are included in briefs as “make weight” to the main issues involved and the same point is often stated in differing ways and given separate headings in the appellant's brief.

Whatever the motivation for employing these techniques, we do not believe that article VI, section 14, requires that we must set forth and dispose of, seriatim, each and every item which appellant's counsel chooses to characterize as an “issue” in the case.

In an era in which there is concern that the quality of justice is being diminished by appellate backlog with its attendant delay, which in turn contributes to a lack of finality of judgment, it behooves us as an appellate court to “get to the heart” of cases presented and dispose of them expeditiously. Unnecessary verbiage and redundant literary exercises are counter-productive.

We regret the length of this order but hopefully it will not have to be repeated.

The petition for rehearing is denied, 173 Cal.Rptr. 64.

PER CURIAM.